Transcript Slide 1
Services Lead to Success Strategies for Repository Growth Isaac Gilman Scholarly Communications & Research Services Librarian Pacific University February 8, 2012 | ALCTS Webinar Series Isaac Managed repository since 2009 Helped draft copyright usage guidelines and revised IP policy for Pacific Co-chair of Pacific’s IRB Shameless plug: Now accepting submissions for Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (jlsc-pub.org) Pacific University | Library Founded 1849 Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Eugene 3,368 students Forest Grove, Hillsboro 7 faculty, 10 staff 208,780 volumes CommonKnowledge CK: Basic Spec Sheet • Digital Commons® • Five primary content types/modules: ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ Series Monographs Image galleries Events Journals Caution: Generalizations Ahead Why an IR? • Common for initial motivations to be internal • • • • We are interested in collection-building We are interested in digitization projects We want to support open access to knowledge We think exposing local content through metadata harvesting and interoperable platforms is important But... ...our user communities aren’t us • They are interested in services – e.g. if the content is available, it doesn’t matter if it’s from our carefully built collections • They are busy with their own projects and scholarly pursuits • They would probably support open access, if they had two free seconds to think about it Therefore... Four Premises of IR Success • A repository must be necessary to be successful • Valuable collections are a byproduct of necessary services • Services should actively support the institution’s mission, values and goals • Services will create dialogue and beget new services Premise I Identify – or create – a context in which repository-based services are necessary Creating a context takes more than amusing marketing Context requires shared understanding • December 2008: Attended ARL/ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute ▫ Vice Provost for Research, Library Director, Library faculty member (future repository manager) • Factors leading to participation: ▫ New Research Office ▫ Desire for environment/infrastructure to support faculty research and scholarship ▫ Desire to investigate potential Library/Research Office partnerships in support of scholarly communication activities Outcome of shared understanding “Overall, my judgment is that Pacific is greatly advantaged by these involvements, and that something like an institutional repository, a ‘Scholar’s Bank’ or some virtual spaces where we can support the academic work of the campus, is urgently needed. [...] What is at stake here? Given the imaginative capacities of the new software technologies, it’s now possible to store, manage and disseminate academic products of all kinds. So we can store undergraduate theses from Arts and Sciences, clinical images from Optometry, run a journal of evidence-based practice for the OT school, establish a Research Commons for faculty to share works-in-progress with colleagues here and elsewhere, and offer a much wider range of opportunities for faculty to gain access to the wider scholarly community through Open Access mechanisms. In short, we can establish a significant profile in the knowledge community by taking these steps.” -Vice Provost for Research Selected slides, Provost’s Council Presentation, December 2008 Building a context • Context discussions should be both institutional and individual ▫ Individual: specific to a department, school, unit, etc. • At Pacific, building an individual context ultimately led to fast-tracking our repository implementation ▫ Hosted conference materials for College of Optometry Selected slides, Optometry Brown Bag Presentation, April 2009 Building a context: Bottom Line • Context allows both the institution and individuals to see how a repository can support initiatives that are important to them • Creating (or identifying) context is key to both implementation and sustainability ▫ External champions/invested users are vital Premise II Developing useful services will lead to valuable collections How can we use CK to serve you? • Requires a real (not invented) need ▫ There is not a user need for every service, but there is a service for every user need • Requires understanding ▫ What is important to the discipline/department/faculty? • Requires relationship ▫ What are you doing, and how can I partner with you? College of Health Professions • Requires relationship ▫ Started with instruction, service and genuine interest (due to lack of personal knowledge!) • Requires understanding ▫ The quality of care and the quality of the providers being created. EBP is a key component of this. • Requires a real (not invented) need ▫ Evidence-based practice requires access to evidence. Case Study 1. Interprofessional Case Conferences • Capturing materials that would otherwise be “lost” Faculty member linked to these as supplementary materials in a journal article – because the publisher couldn’t support them • Being consistent with College’s mission • Increasing visibility for the College online Case Study 2. Faculty Work • Clearest connection to evidence-based practice • “Full-service” model – copyright compliance, formatting, posting Case Study 2. Faculty Work – The Pitch Case Study 3. Occupational Therapy • Background: Body of available evidence is not as large as for some disciplines; however, the emphasis on evidence-based practice has grown over the past decade. • Met with faculty (individually and as a whole) to discuss sharing published work • Identified types of student work appropriate to share ▫ Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) ▫ Innovative Practice Projects Case Study 3. Occupational Therapy • Students are able to contribute to their discipline’s knowledge in a meaningful way • CATs consistently show up as some of our mostdownloaded items Case Study 4. Interprofessional Journal • Journal builds on strengths of College/University • Completes the “suite” – services for every type of work generated in the college CHP Service “Suite” • Student work ▫ ETDs: digital submission saves $$ and increases access ▫ Coursework: students contribute knowledge to their disciplines • Faculty work (un-reviewed) ▫ Conference presentations, posters, gray lit, etc. • Faculty work (previously published) ▫ Post-print formatting ▫ Copyright compliance • Faculty work (original research) ▫ Peer-reviewed venue (journal) ▫ Publishing support services (technical/managerial) Focus on Services: Bottom Line • Seek to provide services that: ▫ Enhance the educational process ▫ Allow faculty and students to contribute in meaningful ways to their disciplines ▫ Are in service of core values (e.g. EBP) ▫ Are meaningful to those receiving them, not just to the library • It’s bigger than the repository... ▫ Frame the repository as “in service” of a greater goal, not an end unto itself Premise III Services should be easily connected to the institution’s mission, values and goals Connect to mission • Mapping services to core values, e.g. ▫ Teaching and learning Heightened visibility for student work may lead to increased quality of student work ▫ Scholarship New venues for scholarly exchange; greater visibility may lead to new collaborations as well ▫ Sustainability Repository contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability ▫ Diversity Possible to share a wide variety of materials, especially those that may have previously lacked a venue ▫ Civic engagement Equitable access to information Connect to mission • Map to practical goals and objectives ▫ Recruit (and retain) intelligent, motivated students and faculty Identify ways the repository can be used to recognize achievement, support teaching/learning/scholarly activities, etc. ▫ Maintain a record of, and promote, the scholarly output of the institution ▫ Deliver services either unique in nature or of distinctive quality (or both) that distinguish the University from comparator institutions Connect to mission • Reinforce the connection ▫ Annual report on repository activities ▫ Funding conversations ▫ Inclusion in Board of Trustee reports Connect to mission • Creating connections to the Library mission is as important as aligning with the University mission ▫ Formally integrate into existing service area – or create new one Local Collections & Publication Services ▫ Incorporate into core themes/goals... DRAFT Focus on Mission: Bottom Line • Allows us to answer the “why” question • Makes it more likely that initiatives will receive support and funding Premise IV Services will create dialogue and beget new services From one, many... • Repository-based services change perceptions ▫ Library can no longer be easily categorized or dismissed • Services lead to questions ▫ Can the library help us address this need? .e.g., Host a journal Address accrediting bodies’ requirements Coordinate a conference website • Services lead to more services ▫ Success leads to new opportunities Use IR as a "Gateway" Service • Provides a scalable service • Start big or start small • Get them hooked: pilot projects/collections • Successful repository services can lead to related non-repository services… Building out from the repository • Publishing services and education ▫ Library participation in new minor in Editing/Publishing • Intellectual property and open access • Open educational resources ▫ Faculty development grants for OER use ▫ Potential for using repository to provide access to locally developed resources • Support for data management plans Mountain Forest by Daniele Pellati (Public DomainPictures.net) The Fifth Premise Flexibility • Success requires flexibility in how you use the repository and what you accept as a “collection” • Examples: ▫ MFA Alumni News ▫ Center for University Excellence ▫ Material that is already openly available elsewhere From document formatting to podcasts to conference hosting And now for something somewhat different... The Sixth Premise... Best Practices • A repository program will be not be successful in the long term if it is not governed by ethical and legal practices Agony and the Ecstasy • We seek unique, unpublished content ▫ Makes our repository distinct ▫ Also means we are responsible for vetting it Common Issues • Privacy ▫ Student work: is it an educational record under FERPA? Language is submission form can address this ▫ What is the university’s privacy policy? ▫ Medical/health-based collections: is data properly de-identified/used under HIPAA? Further Reading: FERPA and Student Work: Considerations for ETDs http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january10/ramirez/01ramirez.html HIPAA and Research http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/research/index.html Common Issues • Research Ethics ▫ Undergraduate student research: Did it receive proper IRB review? Checkbox on submission form Further Reading: Office of Human Subjects Research | Code of Federal Regulations http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html Contact your IRB Common Issues • Copyright ▫ Require permissions or support fair use? Impractical for the library to be the copyright police Recommendations • Identify which of these are/could be issues for you • Communicate with campus stakeholders (Registrar, IRB, Counsel, etc.) ▫ Specifically in regard to copyright: know your risk tolerance • Incorporate into policy or collection management plan That’s all. Really. [email protected]